ReviewNature human behaviour2020
Neutral syndrome.
Review in Nature human behaviour, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imprints of ecological processes in the taxonomic core community: an analysis of naturally replicated microbial communities enclosed in oil.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2024Article
- A cultural evolutionary theory that explains both gradual and punctuated change.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Gattaca: Base-Pair Resolution Mutation Tracking for Somatic Evolution Studies using Agent-based Models.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Non-zero-sum neutrality test for the tropical rain forest community using long-term between-census data.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Neutral theory reveals the challenge of bending the curve for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- The shortlist effect: nestedness contributions as a tool to explain cultural success.Evolutionary human sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neutral models of evolution assume the absence of natural selection. Formerly confined to ecology and evolutionary biology, neutral models are spreading. In recent years they've been applied to explaining the diversity of baby names, scientific citations, cryptocurrencies, pot decorations, literary lexica, tumour variants and much more besides. Here, we survey important neutral models and highlight their similarities. We investigate the most widely used tests of neutrality, show that they are weak and suggest more powerful methods. We conclude by discussing the role of neutral models in the explanation of diversity. We suggest that the ability of neutral models to fit low-information distributions should not be taken as evidence for the absence of selection. Nevertheless, many studies, in increasingly diverse fields, make just such claims. We call this tendency 'neutral syndrome'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32393838What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.